On 20/04/2018 09:25, Bert Coules wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for that.

Like others, I am finding it a bit hard to get my
head round the situation.

I understand that: there have been times when I've been in much the same
situation.

I'll try to post a more detailed explanation a little later, with some
photos if I can manage it, but the basic dispute is this:

For whatever reason, the end wall of the new rear extension and dormer
was not built in exactly the position shown on the council-approved
plans; the brickwork (of the extension) and the timber construction (of
the dormer) are both within my side of what the drawings describe as the
"alleged centre line" of the party wall, but a uPVC end fascia, some
cladding and some tiling all overhang it.Â* If the centre line is
accurate then the maximum overhang is 40mm (the tiles) and the minimum
is 20mm (everything else).

If the overhang exists then I am in breach of my planning permission and
will have to reduce it.Â* But whether or not it does exist, and if so by
how much. depends on the *exact* location of the boundary line, so that
is what has to be determined.

Bert

Are *the planners* saying it has to be reduced? Seems slightly crazy to
be in a dispute over 20 mm encroachment of facia/cladding. (Accepting
that neighbours are almost by definition irrational).

There was a case near where I lived in Bristol many years ago where
someone had PP to rebuild a workshop adjacent to a back garden, one of
the conditions being that the roof height would not change. They went
and actually constructed the new roof over the top of the old one before
removing the latter, with something like an extra foot of height which,
for a garden only 12 feet deep made quite a difference to the light.
Local council called for enforcement and the builder appealed to
Secretary of State. On appeal the inspector who came down from London
(retired Squadron Leader) ruled for the builder.